Constitutional Law Commons^™

Foreword: New Supreme Court Cases: Duquesne Law Faculty Explains, Wilson Huhn

Law Faculty Publications

On September 30, 2022, several members of the faculty of the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University presented a Continuing Legal Education program, New Supreme Court Cases: Duquesne Law Faculty Explains, reviewing these developments. Duquesne Law Review graciously invited the faculty panel to contribute their analysis of these cases from the Supreme Court's 2021- 2022 term for inclusion in this symposium issue of the Law Review.

The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Equity’s Constitutional Source, Owen W. Gallogly argues that Article III is the source of a constitutional default rule for equitable remedies—specifically, that Article III’s vesting of the “judicial Power” “in Equity” empowers federal courts to afford the remedies traditionally afforded by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Founding, and to develop such remedies in an incremental fashion. This Response questions the current plausibility of locating such a default rule in Article III, since remedies having their source in Article III would be available in federal but not state courts and would apply to state-law …

Abortion Rights And Federalism: Some Lessons From The Nineteenth Century United States, Kate Masur

ConLawNOW

The Dobbs decision, which gives states complete control over abortion laws, has unleashed conflicts that resemble the battles that arose when enslaved people fled slave states for free states, and enslavers, in turn, mobilized state and federal power to get them back. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has prompted frequent allusions to slavery and the antebellum United States. The history of those struggles reminds us of the corrosive impact of interstate conflict and of the importance of federal protections for freedom and individual rights. The history of the United States in the nineteenth century …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Dobbs And Unenumerated Parental Custody Rights And Interests, Jeffrey A. Parness

ConLawNOW

This article addresses issues involving custodial parents after Dobbs. It first briefly describes the federal constitutional right to an interest in custodial parentage under pre-Dobbs U.S. Supreme Court precedents. It finds few precedents on defining parents at birth and no precedents on defining parentage arising from post-birth acts. The paper then reviews Dobbs, particularly its varying takes on unenumerated constitutional rights. Finally, it explores how Dobbs should influence future precedents on federal constitutional custodial parentage that arises either at birth or after birth. It urges federal courts to expand custodial parentage in light of societal changes in …

Activist Extremist Terrorist Traitor, J. Richard Broughton

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Abraham Lincoln had a way of capturing, rhetorically, the national ethos. The “house divided.” “Right makes might” at Cooper Union. Gettysburg’s “last full measure of devotion” and the “new birth of freedom.” The “mystic chords of memory” and the “better angels of our nature.” “[M]alice toward none,” “charity for all,” and “firmness in the right.” But Lincoln not only evaluated America’s character; he also understood the fragility of those things upon which the success of the American constitutional experiment depended, and the consequences when the national ethos was in crisis. Perhaps no Lincoln speech better examines the threats to …

Constitutional Text, Founding Era History, And The Independent-State-Legislature Theory, Dan T. Coenen

Georgia Law Review

One question raised by proponents of the so-called independent-state-legislature theory concerns the extent to which state courts can apply state constitutional requirements to invalidate state laws that concern federal elections. According to one proposed application of the theory, state courts can never subject such laws to state-constitution-based judicial review. According to another application, federal courts can broadly, though not invariably, foreclose state courts from drawing on state constitutions to invalidate federal-election-related state legislation. This article evaluates whether either of these positions comports with the original meaning of the Constitution. Given the article’s focus on the originalist methodology, it directs attention …

The Censorship Constraint And Rulemaker State Action: Are Section 230'S Immunity Provisions Unconstitutional Content-Based Regulations?, Scot A. Reader

West Virginia Law Review

Even casual watchers of T.V. crime dramas understand the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. Under this rule, evidence obtained by the police in a search of a criminal suspect’s premises that exceeds the scope of a judicial warrant is almost always inadmissible in the suspect’s criminal trial. The rule is designed to deter unreasonable governmental intrusion into private affairs and applies without regard for the suspect’s guilt or innocence. This Article proposes that the First Amendment includes an analogous rule against governmental censorship. Under this rule, content-based speech regulations exceed the legislature’s speech rulemaking warrant and are almost always invalid. This …

Sola Scriptura: Slavery, Federalism And The Textual Power To Provide For The General Welfare, Calvin H. Johnson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article argues specifically that under the text of the Constitution, Congress has the general power to provide for the welfare through tax and any other necessary and appropriate means. Clause 1 of the description of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Common defense and domestic welfare are parallel in the text and equally plenary, subject only to restrictions protecting individual rights. The final clause of Section 8 then allows Congress to reach the goal of general welfare by any necessary …

The Indecisions Of 1789: Inconstant Originalism And Strategic Ambiguity, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The unitary executive theory relies on the First Congress and an ostensible "Decision of 1789" as an originalist basis for unconditional presidential removal power. In light of new evidence, the First Congress was undecided on any constitutional theory and retreated to ambiguity in order to compromise and move on to other urgent business.

Seila Law's strict separation-of-powers argument depends on indefeasibility (i.e., Congress may not set limits or conditions on the president's power of civil removal). In fact, few members of the First Congress defended or even discussed indefeasibility. Only nine of fifty-four participating representatives explicitly endorsed the presidentialist …

A Prophylactic Approach To Compact Constitutionality, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

From COVID-19 to climate change, immigration to health insurance, firearms control to electoral reform: state politicians have sought to address all these hot-button issues by joining forces with other states. The U.S. Constitution, however, forbids states to “enter into any Agreement or Compact” with each other “without the Consent of Congress,” a requirement that proponents of much interstate action, especially around controversial topics, would hope to circumvent.

The Supreme Court lets them do just that. By interpreting “any Agreement or Compact” so narrowly that it is difficult to see what besides otherwise unlawful coordination qualifies, the Court has essentially read …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: An Embryo Is Not A Person: Rejecting Prenatal Personhood For A More Complex View Of Prenatal Life, Cynthia Soohoo

ConLawNOW

This essay considers current claims for prenatal personhood after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It first explains how the Dobbs decision unnecessarily adopts a binary view of prenatal life, suggesting that the only option for courts and legislatures is to recognize prenatal personhood or deny protection for prenatal life. This ignores popular understandings that certain laws can and should protect prenatal life, especially where criminal or tortious actions are concerned, but not grant full legal personhood. The Dobbs decision also refused to draw meaningful lines about the value of prenatal life in …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Big, Bad Roe, B. Jessie Hill

ConLawNOW

After the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, the question of a constitutional right to abortion goes to state courts where there is a potential for resurgence of a Roe-like standard. This Essay thus evaluates whether Roe’s doctrinal framework is worth resurrecting, and concludes that it is good law to retain. It criticizes the work of liberal legal scholar John Hart Ely, who famously attacked Roe’s reasoning in a much-cited essay entitled The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade. Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization cited …

Rounding Up The Three-Fifths Clause: Eradicating Prison Gerrymandering In The South, Abigail N. Falk

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of prison gerrymandering, a practice that involves counting prisoners as residents of the counties where their state correctional facilities are located—rather than in their home communities—for redistricting and representational purposes. This practice of counting inflates the voting power of rural, white districts with large prison complexes and diminishes the voting power of minority communities. Prison gerrymandering has become especially pervasive across southern states while many of the South’s northern counterparts have eradicated this practice through legislative reform. This Comment proposes a solution to stop prison gerrymandering in the South, arguing a strategy to produce a …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Situating Dobbs, Paula Monopoli

ConLawNOW

This Article applies the concept of constitutional memory to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to dispute the dominant view that the case was unique in erasing a constitutional right. It offers three examples—voting, Prohibition, and protective labor legislation—to illustrate how situating Dobbs within an expansive view of feminist legal history teaches us that it is not the only—just the most recent—example of the Court’s eroding or erasing previously recognized legal protections or rights that had a positive impact on women’s lives. It concludes that Congress, the Supreme Court, and the People themselves have been …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Foreign Law In Dobbs: The Need For A Principled Framework, Sital Kalantry

ConLawNOW

This article critiques the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization for its unprincipled and superficial use of foreign law sources to overturn Roe v. Wade. It explains the surprising use of foreign law by conservative justices who had previously opposed all use of non-US law in decision-making. And it shows how international and foreign law can be used on by either side to both expand and retrench rights. The article thus argues for a more principled framework for when and how to use international law sources including a more contextual analysis of that law.

The Disembodied First Amendment, Nathan Cortez, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment doctrine is becoming disembodied—increasingly detached from human speakers and listeners. Corporations claim that their speech rights limit government regulation of everything from product labeling to marketing to ordinary business licensing. Courts extend protections to commercial speech that ordinarily extended only to core political and religious speech. And now, we are told, automated information generated for cryptocurrencies, robocalling, and social media bots are also protected speech under the Constitution. Where does it end? It begins, no doubt, with corporate and commercial speech. We show, however, that heightened protection for corporate and commercial speech is built on several “artifices” - …

Why Cost/Benefit Balancing Tests Don't Exist: How To Dispel A Delusion That Delays Justice For Immigrants, Joshua J. Schroeder

West Virginia Law Review

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified its earlier presumption that indefinite immigrant detention without bond hearings is unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis. If Zadvydas is a nullity, those who raise due process balancing tests during the post-removal-period in immigrant habeas review may need to find new grounds for review. However, since Boumediene v. Bush was decided in 2008, there are several reasons not to despair Zadvydas’s demise

.

For one, Zadvydas spoke to an extremely narrow subset of cases. It granted a concession under the Due Process Clause to immigrants detained beyond the statutory 90-day removal period. It …

God, Guns, And Hair Salons: Public Perceptions Of Rights And Liberties During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Jessica R. Graham, Kyle J. Morgan

West Virginia Law Review

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, elected officials across the United States took efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Some of these efforts raised constitutional questions about the ability of the government to curtail rights during a crisis. This project makes use of an original dataset—letters to the editor submitted to 33 of the nation’s largest newspapers during the early months of the pandemic—to analyze public attitudes about these restrictions. Like much of the previous work regarding attitudes towards rights and liberties during a crisis, we find that these concerns are not front of mind to the public. …

The Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: How Historical And Blight Designations In The Absence Of Constitutional Safeguards Can Render Property Rights Illusory, Kyle B. Teal, Dane L. Stuhlsatz

St. Thomas Law Review

This article summarily analyzes those more subtle forms of property rights infringement, including historical designations and blight designations, and it critiques laws in place that purport to grant local government the authority to assert such designations. This article also provides a summary of the causes of action owners aggrieved by unjust designations could bring in response, and critiques the flaws in those elective safeguards, which are prevalent even in property rights friendly jurisdictions such as Florida. It then proposes high-level solutions to enact legislation to limit fee exposure for property owners who bring inverse condemnation actions and Bert J. Harris …

Resolving Establishment Clause Issues Is No Longer "Easy-Peasy, Lemon-Squeezy", Daniela Cecilia Pachon

St. Thomas Law Review

The notion of separating Church and State is one that is deeply rooted in American history. Although simple on its face, as the American population grows more diverse, the idea of separation has become a convoluted concept difficult to apply. In an attempt to create a “one-size-fits-all” solution to issues regarding government intruding on the individual’s religious freedoms, the Supreme Court developed a tripartite test to determine whether a statute violated the Establishment Clause. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court combined several tests originating in prior case law to develop the singular, infamous Lemon test. However, in June 2022 with …

Dobbs, Right-Wing Revisionism, And Public Outrage: Rodrigo's Late-Night Chronicle, Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic

American University Law Review

When we next see Rodrigo, he has been brought into town by Giannina’s women’s rights group. The Supreme Court had just decided Dobbs and revoked a constitutional right that had existed for fifty years prior. Giannina’s organization is meeting to discuss possible responses to the Dobbs decision. While he is in town, Rodrigo decides to seek out the professor, hoping to reconnect and pick his brain on this seismic shift in the legal landscape.

Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated by direct analogy to history, unmediated by familiar doctrinal tests. Bruen’s novel approach to historical decision-making purported to constrain judicial discretion but instead enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. Those problems are painfully evident in courts’ faltering efforts to apply Bruen to laws regulating 3D-printed guns, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, obliterated serial numbers, and the possession of guns on subways or by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court’s recent grant of certiorari in United …

Equal Protection Against Policing, Evan D. Bernick

College of Law Faculty Publications

A White police officer pins his knee against a Black man’s neck. The Black man lies prone. He says he can’t move. He says he can’t breathe. He says he’s through. He pleads for his mama. He moans, gasps, and writhes. Blood runs out of his nose and mouth. After eight minutes and forty-six seconds, George Floyd is dead.

Videos of the killing went viral. All four of the Minneapolis Police Department officers who arrested Floyd for allegedly using a counterfeit $20 bill at a convenience store were fired. Derek Chauvin—who held his knee to Floyd’s neck—was initially charged by …

What Is The Object Of The Constitutional Oath?, Evan D. Bernick, Christopher R. Green

College of Law Faculty Publications

How and why are public officials today obliged to follow the Constitution? Article VI gives us a crystal-clear answer: They are bound “by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” But what is “this Constitution”? American constitutional culture today describes its Constitution in ways that presuppose that the Article VI oath binds officeholders to an external, objective, common object: the same commitment for all oath-takers today, and the same commitment today as in the past. Justices on the Supreme Court took their constitutional oaths at different times, spread out over 31 years from 1991 to 2022, but they claim to …

Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben

Faculty Scholarship

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated by direct analogy to history, unmediated by familiar doctrinal tests. Bruen’s novel approach to historical decision-making purported to constrain judicial discretion but instead enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. Those problems are painfully evident in courts’ faltering efforts to apply Bruen to laws regulating 3D-printed guns, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, obliterated serial numbers, and the possession of guns on subways or by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court’s recent grant of certiorari in United …

The Territories Under Text, History, And Tradition, Andrew Willinger

Faculty Scholarship

In two of its major decisions in the 2021–2022 Term, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court continued solidifying its originalist method of constitutional interpretation by looking increasingly to historical regulatory practice to construe how the Constitution protects individual rights. The Court is focused not only on the original public meaning of constitutional provisions, but also on historical practice. Historical laws and practices are now key to understanding how those who lived at the relevant time thought a constitutional provision might be applied and what regulatory approaches were consistent …

Common Good Gun Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Autonomy And Disciplinarity: Can Pseudoprofessional Speakers Select Their Own Constitutional Categorization?, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Federal Emergency Powers Regime, David Landau

Scholarly Publications

Emergency has assumed central importance in the United States legal system. In 2019, President Trump declared an emergency at the southern border after Congress declined to fund his wall; critics responded with legal challenges and proposed reforms to the statute he invoked, the National Emergencies Act (NEA). Emergency powers have also played a key role during the COVID-19 pandemic. This Article conducts a comprehensive survey of emergency powers in the United States. It shows that the NEA is only one among many grants of authority presidents can call upon in a crisis, alongside other emergency schemes, specially delegated statutory power, …

Raising The Threshold For Trademark Infringement To Protect Free Expression, Christine Haight Farley, Lisa P. Ramsey

American University Law Review

The First Amendment right to free speech limits the scope of rights in trademark law. Congress and the courts have devised various defenses and common law doctrines to ensure that protected speech is exempted from trademark infringement liability. These defensive trademark doctrines, however, are narrow and often vary by jurisdiction. One current example is the speechprotective test first articulated by the Second Circuit in Rogers v. Grimaldi, expanded by the Ninth Circuit, and recently restricted by the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products to uses of another’s mark within an expressive work that do not designate the …